Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

schwit1 writes "If you think confiscating aluminum foil to prevent a solar powered bomb attack on a plane is a waste of time, don't blame the TSA agent. According to a former employee most of the security people agree with you. Instead, we need to hold accountable the people sending down such ridiculous orders. From the article: 'Ridiculous restrictions and the TSA have become nearly synonymous in the post-9/11 airport, and as new, improbable terrorist plots come to light, we will likely continue to be burdened with new, absurd rules. But our best bet is to take the frustration toward the TSA agent confiscating our over-sized liquids, and re-direct it to the people at TSA headquarters who are being paid the big bucks to make the rules — the ones who make the call as to whether our toothpaste is verboten and whether our shoes will need extra screening.'"

That site appears to have it backwards. Davy settled on "aluminum" by the time he published Elements of Chemical Philosophy in 1812 (the year your link claims was when he settled on an ending of -ium. Wikipedia includes a quote from the book.

"This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."

It's classified because... if the terrorist planners knew that their plot had failed then they would try again. If you just get rid of the ones doing it, then the plane is safe, the planners assume it's a successful mission, and everyone goes home safe and sound. Do you want the terrorists to make a new plot instead? Why do you hate freedom and democracy?

Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke. My life insurance has not once payed out. The airbag in your car has not once inflated and safed your life. My helmet has not once protected my head from a crash.

The TSA could counter khasim logic very simply: Since the TSA has been in existence no terrorist action on US targets has been succesful.

No your counter argument is incorrect. All of those things are there to protect you from a statistical existent risk. Perhaps your smoke detector has never detected smoke but there are many houses and some have caught fire. The same for air bags we know lots people of car accidents every day and those airbags deployed saving lives. Thing is there lots of flights every day to the TSA is never caught a terrorist. I really only been a handful of incense in the last decade all them gotten past the TSA. Which demonstrates the TSA is both ineffective as a detective control and unneeded as the statistical risk is vanishingly small.

How much do your sprinkler, your fire detectors, your insurance, your helmets or your airbags inconvenience you, how much do they cost every month, how much of an invasion in your privacy are they?

Do I really have to point out the difference between the TSA and your examples? These things not only proved that they worked (something the TSA still has to do), their cost/benefit ratio is also much more favorable. That smoke detector is sitting there quietly and doesn't bother you in the least way, so NOT using

Sorry, the problem with your examples is that they merely represent the TSA agents at a single airport (if that). The correct comparison, to use just one of your examples, is to sprinkler systems in every office in the country. In that case one finds that many of them have put out fires. On the other hand, the TSA agents throughout the country have NOT caught a single terrorist.

Whether you agree or disagree with the need for the TSA, the above is a lousy childish argument.

The spinkler system at my office has not put out a single fire. My smoke detector has not once detected smoke.

And that's where your analogy just crashed and burned. Has there been a fire at your office?

There's been a shoe bomber. There's been Smokey the Terrorist who set his underwear on fire (yeah, not from here, but we're spreading our stupidity around the globe).

See, we've had the fires, it's just that our "smoke detector" - the one that costs us billions of dollars while violating our rights, that smoke detector - has demonstrably failed. While they were patting down old ladies and little kids in wheel chair

While your sprinkler system might not have put out a fire, other ones have. While your smoke detector hasn't detected smoke, others have. Same for life insurance, airbags, and helmets. Just because yours haven't been "put to the test" doesn't mean others haven't.

The equivalent with the TSA would be if the TSA at my local airport has never caught a terrorist but TSA agents in Laguardia, LAX, or some other airport did. However, no TSA agent has *EVER* caught a terrorist. You could place "special rocks th

The devices you mention have a 1:100 chance of needing to operate in a 25-year timeframe for a single instance, roughly. They each add less than 1% to the cost of doing business.

The TSA installation for a single checkpoint process on average 30,000 passengers per year, and has an annual operating cost of (roughly) $600,000, or say $40/round-trip ticket. That is closer to 10% average airfare. It's probability of detecting a "terrorist" (let's go ahead and take a liberal interpretation of the term to inclu

...wow. You're right. The TSA line is relatively vulnerable, and is a more effective target in the first place. There's no reason why a bomber intending to cause terror would even want to get on the plane itself. Hijackers would certainly want to get on the plane, but they wouldn't be using bombs.

I've been saying for a decade now that the very fact that there hasn't been a bombing of a security checkpoint line demonstrates that there certainly isn't a legion of crazed bombers trying to take down the country. Hit one security line and you'll bring American passenger travel to a screaming halt for a few days. Hit two lines and you'll shut it down for weeks. We'll piss ourselves trying to figure out how to check people for bombs before getting to the checkpoint. Don't just hit big, juicy targets like

Nah, foil works perfectly fine. I think it was back in grade 7 or 8, they had someone come in and show us how to make our own homemade explosives, and explained carefully how to do it. This would be going back almost ~15ish years before the fear of *insert terrorist* would try to use this to blow anything up. Funny that, I think it was a year or so after that we had the first round of natives trying to blow up sour gas pipes and wellheads using the same method here in Canada.

If I may play Devil's advocate.. isn't aluminum foil one of two ingredients in a simple, household-items explosive? I'm not sure why you would need to carry it on a plane with you, either.

Flour is an explosive ingredient, (create a fine mist of flour then ignite it) while it's not going to take out the side of your ride, it would cause a very decent devision. It was a science project of mine in Junior High school, as I'm sure many have seen.

I could mention a very easy to transport, freely available and a very destructive combo as I'm sure many here can do the same, and you know were not the only ones who know.

Something else nobody hasn't brought up (all have been explosive potentials) are th

Iron powder alone will also explode given the right conditions, fuel/air explosions are quite a problem in both flour and steel mills. A pile of thermite powder will burn intensely but will not explode, in a pile of thermite the aluminium "steals" the oxygen from the iron oxide rather than the air. Thermite requires a high temperature ignition source such as a magnesium "fuse" or an oxy-torch to start the reaction, where as iron or flour mixed with air just needs an ordinary match.

A while back Bruce Schnieir had his "Movie Plot Terrorism" contests. One of the early ones was to come up with a plot that could only be reasonably stopped by banning some innocuous household item. I found out a bit late to make an entry, and he changed the rules the next year to something else.... but my idea for an entry basically involved several people dropping sacks of flour from building roofs to create a sudden flour cloud in a square and then ignite the whole area into one big fireball.

How about nails? It'd be pretty easy to use common nails to make caltops [wikipedia.org] (basically two nails bent and welded or twisted together so that a pointy side is always facing up). Then the terrists could throw those onto busy freeways, causing big pile-ups and choking our transit arteries.

They can't ban nails, but they may need to be individually serial numbered, stored in locked containers, and their final driving place recorded. Of course, this only works if we institute licenses for the purchase and possession of nails.

Obviously, of course, there are many nails out there in middle class white suburban homes, so when found in such places, we can simply warn people about them. However, we know urban minorities have no excuse to have any at home, so we can nail them to the wall!

Personally, I think any TSA employee in charge of TSA procedures needs to go through said procedure/screening every day before work.

Actually, they need to be fired and replaced by people with proper risk management training, as opposed to risk avoidance.

Risk Avoidance: Do everything in your power to prevent some risk, no matter the costRisk Management: Assess the risk, consider the liklihood of the risk, the damage it will cost if it happens, then look at mitigations, how likely they are to work, how much they'll cost, etc... And make the cheapest decision. IE if on average the mitigation will prevent more loss than it costs, you impliment it. Otherwise you just accept the risk.

Well, you're absolutely right. Perhaps things could actually work this way were it not for news media that has no interest in putting things in context and a populace that ooh look, Justin Beeber, pretty, shiny.

Yes, but while it is a good idea, it could also be political suicide. If a politician is the reason that the security/safety rules became more reasonable, and if an accident happens soon after (no matter how unlikely), that will immediately be blamed on that politician.

While it is incredibly annoying (and expensive!) to have these TSA screenings, it is better for the political careers of all those in charge to steer away from the topic, or to make the rules even more strict. Better safe than sorry.

I think what it's going to take is a new president to replace the head of the TSA with somebody else to force change from the top down.

The problem is that any President or other politician who steps forward to oppose the TSA will be labeled as "soft on terrorism." If another terrorist attack happens, they would then be held responsible and voted out of office. (If they hadn't voted against X, we might have stopped it.) They might even give their future opponents ammo against them without any attack. ("D

Its time to privatize the TSA. If it were up to the airlines to contract with security firms, you'd have logical risk management made through the lens of monetary cost. Make the airlines assume the risk for liability if their security is crap, and they will find a good happy medium between the extremes. I'm not normally a small-government guy, but in this area, it simply makes sense.

This has been an option since 2003. The TSA was put into place after 9/11 but airports were supposed to be allowed to return to private screening after two years. New legislation passed last year supposedly makes it easier to replace TSA agents with private contractors although few airports have done so.

That's not really the same thing. Airports can hire their own screening personnel, but they still "have to follow T.S.A. guidelines and fall under its supervision". All the policy decisions continue to be made by the TSA; the only difference is that they are carried out by private contractors rather than federal employees.

The GP's proposal was to leave all the security decisions up to the airlines, which would assume full liability in the event of a breach. The TSA wouldn't be involved at any point in the p

Actually, they have to receive permission from the TSA to do so. As soon as it appeared that there was going to be a trend of many airports requesting permission the TSA suspended the ability to ask for permission to "study" the issue. Since that point it's been impossible for any airport to request permission for private screening. Until Congress removes the requirement that the TSA must approve an airport switching to private screening I can guarantee they won't approve anyone switching regardless of the

Story: I walked into the Detroit airport a couple years ago while wearing the Video Coat. The nice TSA people marked my entire family's boarding passes SSSS. They inspected us thoroughly, including the eight 5 AH Chinese LiPo battery packs used to power the coat. These are the no-protection-board version with the factory connectors that let you plug two batteries together like BIG 9V batteries. They will happily put out 100 amps.

Had we been 'the type', we could have started four fires in the cabin that day.

Don't believe the prices on the Amtrak website. It's a rather lo-budge operation, so they don't have advance purchase pricing available from the site. The site does work correctly for determining where and when you can go, but then go down to the station for your ticket purchase. If you purchase so much as one day in advance, quite likely you can get a discount.

For example, last I checked, to fly one-way between San Jose, California and Portland, Oregon is about $250. Last Summer I took the Coast Starlight from Diridon Station in San Jose to Union Station in Portland, one day advance purchase for about $80.00.

My Aunt just recently paid about $250.00 for a round-trip from Spokane, Washington to Portland. With two-week advance purchase, that's $86.00 on Amtrack.

The trains don't go everywhere they really need to, so there is some chance you'll make part of your trip on an Amtrak bus. That was the case when I travelled from LA to San Jose. Rather oddly, I took a bus from the HUGE train station in downtown LA to Bakersfield, then the train from there to San Jose. However the busses are quite nice.

Their only "security" is that they want to see your ID when you purchase a ticket. You don't need to show ID when you board the train. There is no X-Ray, no metal detector.

The seats are spacious, there are lots of 110 VAC power sockets. Most but not all trains have WiFi, however the train itself gets onine via a 3G connection that's shared by the whole train, so they limit downloads to 10 MB and do not permit streaming video at all.

Because 3G is a cell phone protocol, you can only get online when the train is within range of a cell tower. Sometimes the trains are way out in the sticks so you cannot get online.

My only gripe is that the food is scanty and very expensive, although it is quite tasty. Pack some sandwiches.

Conversely, taking Amtrak any appreciable distance is going to be painful: painfully long and painfully expensive (unless you don't mind spending days sleeping in your chair).

$1100+, one way, from the middle of the country (say, Omaha) to an endpoint on a different route (say, Miami). Takes about 3 full days to get there, if you're lucky enough to avoid being hit with a 12+ hour stopover someplace. Yes, that price includes roomettes, but like I said: who wants to spend three solid days (again, one way) confined & sleeping in a coach seat? BTW, this is the advance price.

It would be faster, cheaper, and more relaxing to drive, even if one had to rent a vehicle. Oh, and you can leave whenever you want and stop wherever you want, too.

Passenger rail in this country is a half-baked solution in search of a problem. This makes me sad, because I would prefer to use rail in order to avoid the TSA. I just can't take a week of additional travel time to do it.

Same is true for most of Europe. Trains here get a big boost lately, though it's less for the TSA bull (there's actually little security theater over here unless you plan to go to the US), it's simply convenience.

Instead of a seat where you feel sardines in a tin, you get seats like those in first class on a plane, you can actually move around as you feel, you can use your phone, your laptop, your... anything whenever you please, you get internet connection and a power outlet, you actually get to see a bit

Seriously, the train takes FOREVER in the mid-atlantic/northeast corridor. In fact, it takes longer to take the train than it does to drive. And it costs the same as gas if you're going solo, much more if you have 2 or more people travelling together.

Ex: fly to NY, INCLUDING arriving 1.5h before departure to allow for parking/TSA/etc. takes about 3.5 hrs from my town in S/W Virginia to NYC (6 if you have a connecting flight). The drive is 7 hours. The "direct" train is just shy of 9 hours if I count parkin

The cross-country trains in Sweden [www.sj.se] are not bad at all. I usually go in first class, which includes a decent plate lunch (well, it tends to run to köttbullar, potatismos, lingon, which isn't all that exciting, but it's not likely to be messed up, either) and all the free fruit, cakes, and coffee/tea I want. It also includes wifi, which works quite well and is not noticeably throttled or otherwise limited.

An additional bonus is that the toilets in first tend to remain much cleaner for much longer. (I am

They do sell stuff (incl. alcohol) on long distance trains in Norway. Personally I preffer to take the train if going Oslo-Bergen (and pay the 100 NOK (~12 USD) extra for 1st class - which gets you a better seat, access to free newspapers, coffe etc.) - it takes a bit longer than plane, but once you factor in transport to/from airports, the price and time difference is minuscle. And the scenery when crossing the mountains is just fantastic:)

That makes me wonder why I would ever want to visit the USA. I'm sure there are lots of beautiful places to go to and enjoy, but why would I want a semi-educated thug feeling me up and confiscating shit because I might be a bomber. Come to think of it I'm probably on the "fuck this guy over" list because of this and similar comments on other forums. Fuck you NSA, you've cost your country a potential tourist spending several thousand dollars travelling, eating, drinking, visiting places.........

Sadly though, most european airports are exactly the same. I'm a pilot, and I've actually seen them take a bottle of after shave from a captain, not even apologising for their idiocy, as if it was the most normal and logical thing in the world. Never mind the giant crash axe behind the first officer's seat, we must not allow them to bring nail clippers on board! Back when I was flying private jets, they wanted to pass my passengers' cat through the X-ray machine. They might try to hijack their own private plane with a weapon hidden in the plastic cat container! We had to take the cat out, fortunately it didn't run away or they would no doubt have closed the airport. Idiots.

Somehow, with your hostile attitude, I think you made the decision quite a long time ago to never visit America. And yet you feel the need to get up and talk shit in front of everyone, acting like this is the last straw that cost America a shit-ton of money. Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people. But I have found in my life that closed-minded bigots will not do this, and instead spend time bitching and moaning to others like themselves. Like the people who modded you +5 Insightful.

The TSA is (typically) not the one putting people on no-fly lists or "requires additional probing" lists, that's the intelligence agencies. Keep up yourself.

Here's a clue: we Americans hate the federal government, too. If you set your prejudices aside you might just find friendly, like-minded people.

A lot of good it does him when he ends up with all his possessions confiscated, sitting in some detention area for days praying that they'll let him go back home soon. If you weren't so hyper-sensitive (the reasons for which I can only speculate on), you may have noticed OP wasn't saying anything about Americans, only your government.

The people who profit from making all these inane rules are ultimately the manufacturers of the screening equipment, the people training security staff, et cetera. In other words, the military-industrial-security complex. It is with them (and the politicians who sell us out to them) that we must start redressing our grievances. We must also stop sensationalising every one-in-a-million occurrence (terrorism, being struck twice by lightning) and start mitigating the effects of problems that will likely impact

Last month I flew from Bangkok to Hong Kong. The security people stole my fingernail scizzors. I am still looking for a replacement. They also took a bottle of Vasaline Lotion purchased in 7/11. Warnings talk about "less than 100 ml" and "more than 100 ml" but nobody knows what happens if the bottle is exactly 100 ml.

I give up - no more flying. There is an overland route from Bangkok through Laos and China to Hong Kong. Actually there is an overland route from Bangkok to damned near anywhere in the world.

We know that, the story was old years ago. The real question I don't see asked often enough and answered even less is: What does it have to do with? Why do they do this bullshit, and why does it get more transparent? Why have we reached the part where even regular people begin to understand the TSA is full of it?

Is it just stupidity? Really? While you shouldn't always look for malice, there's also a point where stupidity ceases to be the most likely expl

We know that, the story was old years ago. The real question I don't see asked often enough and answered even less is: What does it have to do with? Why do they do this bullshit, and why does it get more transparent? Why have we reached the part where even regular people begin to understand the TSA is full of it?

Is it just stupidity? Really? While you shouldn't always look for malice, there's also a point where stupidity ceases to be the most likely explanation.

The simple fact that a discussion like this comes up proves that the terrorists have already won, big time. The hundreds of billions of dollars that the world spends on "preventing" terrorist attacks is much more than the terrorists could have hoped for. They damage the economy, not by destroying buildings or killing people, but by making us spend an obscene amount of money in useless "anti-terrorist" measures.

We should stop all this. We should just hop on a plane and fly. Fuck the terrorists.

The simple fact that a discussion like this comes up proves that the terrorists have already won, big time. The hundreds of billions of dollars that the world spends on "preventing" terrorist attacks is much more than the terrorists could have hoped for. They damage the economy, not by destroying buildings or killing people, but by making us spend an obscene amount of money in useless "anti-terrorist" measures.

We should stop all this. We should just hop on a plane and fly. Fuck the terrorists.

You're right; and because the biggest terrorist attack in this country involved planes, all future attacks have to involve planes, right? TSA has a stupid fear quelling operation that makes them look really dumb, not one that protects. And you're right with your first statement. They FEEL they have won, which only strengthens their feelings of superiority.

I see, so the terrorists successfully using planes, and not protecting aviation, would lead them to what, precisely? Declare victory and go back to bothering the locals? Hold news conferences showing their superiority and stating there's no need to use planes again? What exactly do you propose to do when a hole is found in security? State unequivocally that this was an isolated incident and the American people can feel confident that their government is not worried?

And how exactly should we "re-direct" our frustration to the "people at TSA headquarters who are being paid the big bucks to make the rules"? Should we all go down there and invite them to lunch? The TSA agents ARE the face of the TSA. They are the only part of the TSA agency that most people will ever come into contact with. If the TSA agents don't like being the face of an organization with absurd rules, then they should ALL quit. Maybe that would cause some kind of change to those absurd rules.

What else would you expect from the TSA? Their #1 job is to justify their existence and the only way they can is by finding more "restricted items". When passengers start complying with the current set of rules, the amount of restricted items goes down. To counter this downward trend, it is TSA HQ's job to issue more directives that are designed to increase the number of confiscations and therefore increase the justification for the TSA.

A year or so ago, TSA management announced that some sharps would be allowed back on planes. Makes sense - With post 9/11 policies in place it's not like you're going to take down a plane with a pen knife. The outcry from the flying public, flight attendants & the media forced the TSA to back pedal back to banning them.

...so if you want non-stupid policies we the people have to loudly applaud when their are tiny steps in that directio

Most front-line TSA agents despise the absurd rules they are ordered to enforce just as much as the public whose items are confiscated due to the rules. Ask almost any TSA employee what his or her least favorite part about the job is, and the answer will usually include a long list of managers, federal security directors, and other higher-ups.

Yes most people hate their jobs. The difference is, most people's jobs actually have some kind of point other than providing something for politicians to cover their a

I agree with you 100%. But keep in mind, (especially male) Americans are raised to believe that they are always the "best" and will always be the "winner", no matter what. There is no such thing as "losing" a fight. It's impossible for most males to admit they are "wrong". They can only go as far as to say they were not given all of the information necessary to make the correct decision, and even then that is a bit of a stretch because they must know everything at all times. Which is one of the stupide

Yah, then there was Libya. French sent forces in, then a couple days later had to come, hat in hand, to the USA - "uh, we don't have enough bombs to get this done...could we borrow some of your bombs, please?"

Because of the US's stupid attitude towards terrorism, their allies (like my country) followed suit FOR NO OTHER REASON than to keep the US happy.

We've had worse terrorism, going on for longer, from much more dangerous and determined people. And we had none of this junk until the US decided to dictate what "wars" we should or should not get involved in.

I have the same ludicrous restrictions despite the fact that no such incident ever occurred on UK soil (and despite the fact that we had the Lo